Comments

The problem I see with that is that you could remove core rules with it. If I created a rule which said that you can’t create new rules or make changes while 1.1 is in effect, that would force 1.1 to be removed. Suddenly, people can break rules and modify the ruleset however they want.

This wouldn’t actually have helped with the “boring” problem, which (although we never fully argued its effects) probably just gave everyone a veto power. It was still theoretically possible to make rule changes.

And there are loads of other ways to freeze the nomic solid; “no gamestate changes until 2071” or “must pay Bucky $500 to change the gamestate” would do it, without triggering this detector.

If the game ever breaks, we can just informally agree to stop playing it, and to start playing a new game with the core ruleset. (The same way you’d stop playing chess, and get a new set, if the board caught fire, or if someone tactically ate your king.)

Agora has a rule like this, but with a time limit (i.e. there must be some combination of player actions to make a change within 4 weeks, IIRC). It prevents changes to the ruleset, rather than repealing the rules in question, though; that’s probably more scam-proof.

I’d prefer a core rule stating something like ‘no rule can be added or amended in a way that prevents CfJs making arbitrary rule changes, unless this rule is first amended to remove this restriction’. That pretty much sums up our unwritten rule about CfJs in a written-down way.

"Nomic is a game in which changing the rules is a move. In that respect it differs from almost every other game. The primary activity of Nomic is proposing changes in the rules, debating the wisdom of changing them in that way, voting on the changes, deciding what can and cannot be done afterwards, and doing it. Even this core of the game, of course, can be changed."